Cafe Philo in New York City - in two weeks: "What is the difference between thought and fantasy?"

The discussion topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City, in two weeks on Thursday, March 12, 2009, is "What is the difference between thought and fantasy?".

As usual, Bernard Roy will be the moderator.

In addition, Ron Gross will be there to give a pitch for Conversation Week, March 24-30.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

In praise of penguins

In her recent New York Times Op-Ed entitled "The Dead Tree Theory", Gail Collins offers this praise for penguins:

... everybody likes penguins. They march; they don't fly into airplane engines ...

What's not to like?

She was proposing a logo/mascot for the economic recovery effort. Her final suggestion:

Joe Biden -- Dressed like a penguin.

She didn't mention anything about open source.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City - this week: "Can evil be absolute?"

The discussion topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City, this week on Thursday, February 26, 2009, is "Can evil be absolute?".

As usual, Bernard Roy will be the moderator.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Here is what President Obama needs to do...

There is only one thing that President Obama needs to do:

1. Continue to ignore all of the "back-seat driving" advice he is getting from so many pundits, commentators, alleged experts, journalists, and even his supposed supporters.

He is incredibly smart in his own right and has direct access to the infamous "best and brightest", many either working right in the White House or a mere phone call away. He has no shortage of resources for assembling all of the relevant facts and driving towards effective solutions to the challenges before us. End of story!!!

There are two core camps of critics of the President:

1. "The Opposition" - plenty of sour grapes there. This is to be expected -- and ignored. They lost, but they want their losing ideas to live on. President Obama is doing a great job of continuing to humor them.
2. Progressive supporters who can never accept the concept of compromise. They need to just sit down and shut up. President Obama will compromise on progressive ideals only to the extent that it is necessary to effectively govern. The Progressives need to accept that.

President Obama can, has been, should, and will continue to "dialog" with both camps as he continues to forge compromises that address the challenges before us.

In other words, President Obama needs only to continue to follow his own nose and gut instinct, critics be damned. Or, in today's vernacular, "Let them blog."

-- Jack Krupansky

Initial payments received for my Kiva micro-loans

February 15, 2009 was the due date for the initial repayments for some of my initial micro-loan made through Kiva.org. Although 2 of my original 13 loans were fuly refunded due to problems with their field partner (before the money was actually disbursed by Kiva), the remaining 11 are doing fine. I used part of the repayments to fund a new micro-loan, my 14th (12 now outstanding.)

Of my 11 outstanding micro-loans that had payments due (or made a payment in advance of the due date), repayments to date are 20%, 33%, 25%, 10%, 20%, 8%, 11%, 13%, 8%. That amounted to a return of 9% of my original "investment." Not bad at all for a batch of loans made in December.

My intention is to fund a new micro-loan each month from repayments.

I still have not decided what to do with the money from those two refunded false starts. They were both in the Dominican Republic. Maybe that is not the safest place to lend at this time. I may simply make two replacement micro-loans. In both cases I lent several times the size of my usual micro-loan, so if I make two normal-size micro-loans I will have a moderate size pile of cash sitting idle. I already had a modest amount of reserve cash in Kiva. I may withdraw the excess cash from Kiva and only keep a modest reserve, enough to assure that I can make a new micro-loan next month even if I receive no additional repayments before the end of March. We'll see.

I do wish that Kiva would actually pay us lenders some interest. That would be an incentive to fund significantly more micro-loans.

-- Jack Krupansky

Good and evil

Until the Neoconservatives rolled out their "axis of evil" in President Bush's State of the Union Address seven years ago, and other than President Reagan's reference to an "evil empire" in 1983 ("to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil") I can recall no general public discussion of public affairs or the lives of individuals that in any way relied on this concept of "evil." Sure, theologians and philosophers have debated "good and evil", but at a practical level, public discourse about our daily lives, our governments, or the relations between nations did not seem to be hinged on a determination of "evil."

Sure, there are occasional "tweaks", that are more mocking than being serious references, such as Google having the motto "Don't be Evil" or people (including me) referring to Microsoft as "The Evil Empire", but for the most part, public references to "evil" are more playful, than serious -- with the exception of right-wing conservatives and religious evangelicals.

Obviously some politicians have seen some value in polarizing life and labeling their side "good" and their enemies as "evil." But, does this political use of "evil" really relate to the conception of good and evil as referenced by theologians and philosophers or is it merely an "us vs. them", "you are either with us or against us" mentality?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_Evil
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_empire

Is a discussion of "good and evil" implicitly about a struggle between "right and wrong"? Are all wrongs implicitly "evil"? Are "little white lies" and "monstrous lies" both simply "evil" per se? Is evil a relatively generic concept with no sense of a threshold that can distinguish between "innocent mistakes" and "crimes against humanity"?

Personally, I do not sense any symmetry of a spectrum between so-called good and evil. When I think of"good", I think not of everyday activities that are completely harmless, but of instances where some extra effort is exerted to accomplished something positive that is out of the ordinary, such as a dramatic act of kindness or mercy, or saving a life, or offering hope where there was only despair. I do not think of tying my shoelaces, eating lunch, paying my taxes, or even jury duty [now there's an evil!] as somehow being examples of "good."

I am thinking that we need three categories or states: beneficial, neutral or benign, and harmful. Most of our everyday activities, either at a personal, group, government, or international level, will tend to be relatively benign. Some activities may be harmful to self and others. Other activities may be beneficial and lead to improving our own lives and the lives of others.

Yes, we definitely seek to minimize those harmful activities and maximize the beneficial and benign activities, but where this idea of a "struggle" between "good and evil" fits in is unclear, to me, from a purely philosophical or practical perspective.

Two simple questions come to mind:

1) Should we reserve the term "evil" for only the most extreme cases or should it apply whenever an action is neither benign or beneficial?

2) Rather than the current political practice of using the term "evil" for its political value when harm is extreme, should we simply use "evil" to mean any temptation to cause harm to self or others?

Here is one quote about evil that never really made sense to me: "Time is always on the side of evil." It is from Newt Gingrich:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.13273/pub_detail.asp

He says:

Time is always on the side of evil. That is an important premise of history. Time is always on the side of evil because the terrorists can wait, they can plan, and they can look for vulnerabilities while the good go about their daily business. To defeat terrorism, the good have to mobilize for decisive victory.

I understand what he is saying, but I do not buy it. It seems to me that you have to have a very weak model of "good" to imagine that evil will tend to prevail if given enough time. It is as if he presumes that "good" is stupid and "evil" is inherently smarter than "good." He seems to forget that "evil" can make mistakes, run out of resources, lose resolve, be undermined or superseded by social and political and economic changes, etc.

-- Jack Krupansky

What constitutes evil?

My dictionary tells me that evil is "something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity" or "the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing" or "a cosmic evil force" or "morally reprehensible" or "causing harm."

My immediate question is that if we are referring to "evil", are we primarily referring to an act (an evil action), an agent (an evil person, evil group, evil organization, evil political entity such as a member of "the axis of evil), an intention, a thought, an idea, the nature of man, or exactly what?

If an agent (person, group, political or social entity) commits an "evil act", is the agent per se evil or is the agent evil only to the extent of particular actions that are labeled as "evil."

Does having an evil thought make an agent evil?

Does intent short of an evil action constitute evil as well?

Are there gradations or a spectrum of evil from very minor to extreme?

Are all notions of evil moral in nature or is there some form of evil that exists without a concern for morality? The issue is that morality is inherently relative to a culture or society or belief system. Or, is there some kind of universal form of evil, independent of culture, reason, politics, and religion?

Is evil distinct from malevolence or malice? My dictionary refers to malice as desire or intent and it is commonly used in law. The Wikipedia says that "Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_(legal_term))

I find it interesting that the law refers to actions and "intention", but makes no effort to conclude that the party is "evil" per se.

If even the law has no need to determine that an agent is "evil" per se, who exactly is it that does need to label people or groups as "evil"? Religions? Political parties? Governments? What is that all about?

Why isn't it sufficient to label "bad" behavior as simply crime or criminal? Or, in society to simply refer to "acceptable" and "unacceptable" behavior? Of what value is this added label of "evil"?

Is the real issue the nature of the agent as the source of evil or is it the "need" or opportunity for groups to engage in a strategy or tactic of labeling agents as "evil" as a form of political or social "warfare", much as we saw with the Neoconservatives and their "Axis of Evil"?

Personally, I have never encountered a need to use the term "evil" in my daily life. Can anyone suggest a rationale why I or anyone else should begin labeling anybody or anything as "evil" rather than merely criminal, antisocial, unacceptable, undesirable, etc.? Does it really have some special value, other than in religion and in extremist politics and cultural and social organizations?

Or, let me put it in the form of a simple question: Why bother with this pseudo-concept of "evil" when we have enforceable laws for proscribed behavior that has the potential for harm?

-- Jack Krupansky

What is the nature of evil?

My dictionary tells me that evil is "something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity" or "the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing" or "a cosmic evil force" or "morally reprehensible" or "causing harm."

My immediate question is that if we are referring to "evil", are we primarily referring to an act (an evil action), an agent (an evil person, evil group, evil organization, evil political entity such as a member of "the axis of evil), an intention, a thought, an idea, the nature of man, or exactly what?

If an agent (person, group, political or social entity) commits an "evil act", is the agent per se evil or is the agent evil only to the extent of particular actions that are labeled as "evil."

Does having an evil thought make an agent evil?

Does intent short of an evil action constitute evil as well?

Are there gradations or a spectrum of evil from very minor to extreme?

Are all notions of evil moral in nature or is there some form of evil that exists without a concern for morality? The issue is that morality is inherently relative to a culture or society or belief system. Or, is there some kind of universal form of evil, independent of culture, reason, politics, and religion?

Is evil distinct from malevolence or malice? My dictionary refers to malice as desire or intent and it is commonly used in law. The Wikipedia says that "Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_(legal_term))

I find it interesting that the law refers to actions and "intention", but makes no effort to conclude that the party is "evil" per se.

If even the law has no need to determine that an agent is "evil" per se, who exactly is it that does need to label people or groups as "evil"? Religions? Political parties? Governments? What is that all about?

Why isn't it sufficient to label "bad" behavior as simply crime or criminal? Or, in society to simply refer to "acceptable" and "unacceptable" behavior? Of what value is this added label of "evil"?

Is the real issue the nature of the agent as the source of evil or is it the "need" or opportunity for groups to engage in a strategy or tactic of labeling agents as "evil" as a form of political or social "warfare", much as we saw with the Neoconservatives and their "Axis of Evil"?

Personally, I have never encountered a need to use the term "evil" in my daily life. Can anyone suggest a rationale why I or anyone else should begin labeling anybody or anything as "evil" rather than merely criminal, antisocial, unacceptable, undesirable, etc.? Does it really have some special value, other than in religion and in extremist politics and cultural and social organizations?

Or, let me put it in the form of a simple question: Why bother with this pseudo-concept of "evil" when we have enforceable laws for proscribed behavior that has the potential for harm?

-- Jack Krupansky

Death to the Hummer!!

As GM struggles to restructure to survive, it seems abundantly clear to me that the Hummer has to go. Sure, if they find a buyer they should sell the Hummer business. If they are unable to line up a buyer and the business is unprofitable, the solution is clear: they must kill off the Hummer business. Simply shut it down, kill the Hummer.

Besides, the Hummer is the epitome of excess of a world that no longer exists. Big, expensive, guzzles fossil fuel, favored by overpaid managers and executives -- including those of Wall Street.

At heart, the Hummer is a distraction to GM management. Rather than expending time, energy, and resources figuring out how to save the Hummer, GM management should focus all of that time, energy, and resources on the Volt and other paths that at least have a hope for the future.

The Hummer must go. GM should kill it while they have the chance.

What about Saab? Simply spin it off to local Swedish management for $1, let it file for bankruptcy, and let the Swedish government decide if there is anything worth saving there. If anybody actually wants to buy it for more than $1, great, sell it ASAP. Either way, get this dog off of the plate of GM management as well.

The only thing GM management should be focused on is the path to the future.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City - next week: "Can evil be absolute?"

The discussion topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City, next week on Thursday, February 26, 2009, is "Can evil be absolute?".

As usual, Bernard Roy will be the moderator.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to make sense

There was an amusing aphorism about truth and fiction in the new movie The International (with Clive Owen and Naomi Watts.) I may not have the exact wording, but it is roughly:

The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to make sense.

(Or maybe it was "There is a difference between truth and fiction -- fiction has to make sense.")

That sounded like it was probably a noteworthy quote from somebody, so I did a Google search. Mark Twain's name popped up a few times with various wordings. I did another search using his name and found these two quotes on BrainyQuote.com, so they are probably the definitive quotes:

It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.

Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense.

A similar quote is attributed to Rosten, Leo:

Truth is stranger than fiction; fiction has to make sense.

And a similar quote is attributed to Tom Clancy:

The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

My suspicion is that the film used Clancy's version. If I ever meet Clancy, I'll ask if he "borrowed" from Twain's adage.

Finally, Alex Lane asserts that Twain's adage is "roundly refuted" by the popularity of The X-Files.

So, can we use the fact that a proposition "makes sense" as a criteria for judging truth or lie, fact or fiction? If not, what good is it for us to obsess over whether anything "makes sense"?

-- Jack Krupansky

New job!

I received an offer for some work in the mail yesterday! Sort of...

A gentleman by the name of Norman Goodman seems to think I am qualified to do some work for him. He is not offering a lot, $40 for an 8-hour day, plus reimbursement for travel to and from work. That works out to $5 an hour. That's not great, but not so bad for this economy.

What kind of work? It turns out that all I will have to do is, literally, sit around all day and listen to a bunch of lawyers. Whatever.

It is called jury duty.

-- Jack Krupansky

Simple solution to the mortgage crisis

All manner of "fixes" have been proposed and will continue to be proposed to "fix" the housing/mortgage crisis, but none have so fare managed to gain traction. I have a simple proposal which I call the Mortgage Resolution Corporation (MRC), a government-sponsored entity (yeah, I know...), whose primary function is simply to make mortgage payments whenever the consumer fails to do so.

The bank or other mortgage servicing entity would simply electronically "debit" an account for the consumer at the MRC for the principal and interest.

In exchange, the MRC incrementally assumes a partial ownership of the mortgaged property, ahead of the consumer, and possibly ahead of the bank or mortgage servicer for the amount of principle paid down.

The MRC would maintain a debit account for the amount of mortgage payments paid so that if and when the underlying property is sold, the consumer would receive a capital gain only to the extent that they have paid down their MRC debit account. This would provide an incentive for consumers to eventually catch up on their payments and not get too much of a free ride.

The MRC would be like the old toxic waste dump "Superfund" program in that its first job is to keep payments flowing and keep people in their houses, but to also attempt to recoup costs whenever legally possible.

Initially, the U.S. government would fund the MRC, but after it has been in operation for a few years, it would be expected that the private sector would buy into the MRC and supply private capital to run the program with explicit government backing of the mortgages.

This plan would:

1. Eliminate foreclosures.
2. Keep mortgage payments flowing to banks, servicers, and investors.
3. Keep people in their houses even when they lose employment or have expensive health problems.
4. Earn the taxpayers a healthy return over a 5-10 year period as the housing market eventually bounces back.
5. Earn homeowners a profit to the extent they maintain the property for 5-10 years and eventually catch up on all mortgage payments.

Do you have a better idea??

-- Jack Krupansky

Nine months without flying

I just realized that I have not been near an airport or in a plane in over nine months, not since I flew from Seattle to New York City back in the third week of May in 2008 to complete my move to Manhattan. But, that is part of the whole point of living in New York City, the high energy and ultra-wide diversity, so that there is no significant need to fly elsewhere for adventure. Okay, sure, yes, people do like to go to the Caribbean in the winter, Africa for safaris, some people do ski and scuba dive, and the "old" cities of Europe do have their charm, but is it really worth all of the hassle of having to deal with the airports and flying? Not for me.

I can still remember when flying and even traveling to the airport and checkin was a real breeze and joy, but that was a long time ago. That was back when I would fly somewhere almost every weekend simply for the fun of it.

Nowadays, I avoid flying and airports as a matter of pride, independence, and free spirit. Yes, I am actually proud of not patronizing the airlines. Frequent flyer miles earned over the past nine months: zero.

Actually, I do need to book a flight to Colorado for late March for an entrepreneur's conference soon, but meanwhile I can fantasize about taking the train, bus, or even hitchhiking simply to thumb my nose at the airlines.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City - this week: "What are the causes of war?"

The discussion topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City, this week on Thursday, February 12, 2009, is "What are the causes of war?". Is it in our nature or genes? Is it a result of our culture? Is it the result of reasoning? Or what?

As usual, Bernard Roy will be the moderator.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Save lots of money at Eddie Bauer online clearance

I have been wearing casual shirts from Eddie Bauer for a number of years. Usually, I pick them up on sale at the local store in the winter or spring in the $15 to $20 range, usually for odd colors that were in lower demand (orange, dark red). Unfortunately, there is no local Eddier Bauer store where I live now. There used to be a couple here in Manhattan, but they are gone now. There are a couple outside of the city, but not near enough to be convenient for me. I have been checking online in hope of seeing a little "deflation", but the cheapest I saw was $20 plus a $3 service fee and $5 shipping for their traditional "solid color signature twill" cotton shirt. Ouch. Besides, they were very low on stock, so I couldn't save money by buying a bunch of them.

But this morning I decided to see if they had a separate "clearance" section, separate from the usual "sale" offerings, and they do. Click here for Eddie Bauer Online clearance.

Unfortunately, they did not have any of the my usual solid color signature twill shirts available in my size. Besides, the price was still way up at $20.

But, they had just added the "original patterned signature twill" shirt to the clearance section for $11. Sure, they only had some odd color in my size ("Night"??), but the price was definitely right. This is regularly a $40 shirt. The solid color shirt I usually got listed for $5 less ($35.) What a great deal. I ordered four of them for $52 including all those charges and fees, so that works out to $13 each. That works for my budget.

 

-- Jack Krupansky

Launch of the Singularity University

There is now a Singularity University that will offer training to professionals interested in pursuing Ray Kurzweil's vision of a "singularity." Their stated mission is "Preparing Humanity For Accelerating Technological Change":

Singularity University aims to assemble, educate and inspire a cadre of leaders who strive to understand and facilitate the development of exponentially advancing technologies and apply, focus and guide these tools to address humanity's grand challenges.

From their press release today:

Singularity University to Study Accelerating Technologies, Launches at NASA Ames

February 3rd, 2009 – news
Singularity University, Press Release

MOUNTAIN VIEW and LONG BEACH, Calif. — (TED CONFERENCE) — February 3, 2009 – With the support of NASA, Google and a broad range of technology thought leaders and entrepreneurs, a new university will launch in Silicon Valley this summer with the goal of preparing the next generation of leaders to address "humanity's grand challenges." Singularity University (SU) (www.singularityu.org) will open its doors in June 2009 on the NASA Research Park campus with a nine-week graduate-level interdisciplinary curriculum designed to facilitate understanding, collaboration, and innovation across a broad range of carefully chosen scientific and technological disciplines whose developments are exponentially accelerating.

SU co-founders Dr. Ray Kurzweil and Dr. Peter Diamandis unveiled plans for the new university today at the annual TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) Conference in Long Beach, Ca.

"We are now in the steep part of the exponential trajectory of information technologies in a broad variety of fields, including health, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence," said Kurzweil. "It is only these accelerating technologies that have the scale to address the major challenges of humanity ranging from energy and the environment, to disease and poverty. With its strong focus on interdisciplinary learning, Singularity University is poised to foster the leaders who will create a uniquely creative and productive future world."

I am still not persuaded of the concept or practicality of the supposed singularity, but all of the component technologies make perfect sense and are in need of research, innovation, and dissemination. The release goes on to say:

"We are reaching out across the globe to gather the smartest and most passionate future leaders and arm them with the tools and network they need to wrestle with the grand challenges of our day," said Diamandis. "There is no existing program that will offer the breadth and intensity that SU will offer. During the year, between the Graduate Summer Programs, SU will offer a unique 3-day and 10-day program for CEOs and executives that will give them the forward-looking radar they need to determine how these key technologies might transform their companies and industries in the 5-10 years ahead."

That makes sense to me, but what CEO can afford to look out even two years let alone 5-10 years? Still, it is good to promote interest in the degree of research needed to tackle any of the "grand challenges" in front of us.

The curriculum will provide a broad, interdisciplinary exposure to ten key fields of study:

1. future studies and forecasting
2. networks and computing systems
3. biotechnology and bioinformatics
4. nanotechnology
5. medicine, neuroscience and human enhancement
6. AI, robotics, and cognitive computing
7. energy and ecological systems
8. space and physical sciences
9. policy, law and ethics
10. finance and entrepreneurship.

Unless you have read Ray's book, you are probably wondering what the Singularity is all about. From the first chapter of the book:

Gradually, I've become aware of a transforming event looming in the first half of the twenty-first century. Just as a black hole in space dramatically alters the patterns of matter and energy accelerating toward its event horizon, this impending Singularity in our future is increasingly transforming every institution and aspect of human life, from sexuality to spirituality.

What, then, is the Singularity? It's a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed. Although neither utopian nor dystopian, this epoch will transform the concepts that we rely on to give meaning to our lives, from our business models to the cycle of human life, including death itself. Understanding the Singularity will alter our perspective on the significance of our past and the ramifications for our future. To truly understand it inherently changes one's view of life in general and one's own particular life. I regard someone who understands the Singularity and who has reflected on its implications for his or her own life as a "singularitarian."

...

The key idea underlying the impending Singularity is that the pace of change of our human-created technology is accelerating and its powers are expanding at an exponential pace. Exponential growth is deceptive. It starts out almost imperceptibly and then explodes with unexpected fury -- unexpected, that is, if one does not take care to follow its trajectory.

That still does not adequately convey the full nature of the Singularity, but it is a start. In essence, the Singularity involves major breakthroughs in hard artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and genetic engineering. The book calls this GNR for Genetics, Nanotechnology, and Robotics. When all of the related technologies come together and enable a new acceleration of knowledge and thinking, that is the Singularity. That is still an oversimplification, but will have to do for now.

The interesting thing is that this is an interesting attempt to achieve revolutionary change rather than simply plod along at a pace at which we started the 20th century with automobiles for personal transportation, but ended there as well. So much of what we use computers (and robots) for today is simply the automation of traditional tasks, but not so much in the way of revolutionary new concepts.

-- Jack Krupansky

Justification for war: casus belli

In the process of preparing for the next Cafe Philo in New York City discussion topic of "What are the causes of war?" I have been doing some reading on the Web. Nothing exhaustive, but at least it is a start.

I am not usually into Latin, but I recall that the term "casus belli" was being thrown around a lot back in 2002 and 2003 regarding Iraq.

From the dictionary:

casus belli
Etymology: New Latin, occasion of war
Date: circa 1841
: an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict

There is an old saying in Washington, "Never confuse public pronouncements with private intentions." A casus belli is more in the way of the public justification, separate from whatever the underlying true "cause" is. In the case of Iraq, WMD, alleged support for terrorism, and the "need" to promote democracy were given as the essential casus belli. The true underlying "causes" remain a matter of debate. There are plenty of conspiracy theories and mere speculation. Was it really all about oil? Was the so-called Pro-Israel "lobby" the "cause"? Was the WMD "evidence" merely faulty or intentionally misleading? Was the media coverage to blame to the level of being a "cause"? The speculation continues.

Wikipedia article on rationale for the Iraq war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

Wikipedia article on the Iraq war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war

Wikipedia on war in general including causes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

Going back further, to a war that we are all aware of but have no personal emotional stake in, the Wikipedia article on World War I says:

The causes of the war can be traced to the unification of Germany in 1871, and the uneasy balance of power among the European Great Powers in the opening years of the 20th century. Additional spurs to conflict included continuing French resentment over the loss of territory to Germany in the 19th century; growing economic, military and colonial competition between Britain and Germany; and the continuing instability of Austro-Hungarian rule in the Balkans.

The proximate trigger for the war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by a Bosnian Serb. Austria-Hungary's demands for revenge against the Kingdom of Serbia led to the activation of a series of alliances which within weeks saw most European powers at war. Because of the global empires of many European nations, the war soon spread worldwide.

The U.S. was not involved in that initial struggle, but then...

In January 1917, after the Navy pressured the Kaiser, Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare. Britain's secret Royal Navy cryptanalytic group, Room 40, had broken the German diplomatic code. They intercepted a proposal from Berlin (the Zimmermann Telegram) to Mexico to join the war as Germany's ally against the United States, should the U.S. join. The proposal suggested, if the U.S. were to enter the war, Mexico should declare war against the United States and enlist Japan as an ally. This would prevent the United States from joining the Allies and deploying troops to Europe, and would give Germany more time for their unrestricted submarine warfare program to strangle Britain's vital war supplies. In return, the Germans would promise Mexico support in reclaiming Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.[67]

After the British revealed the telegram to the United States, President Wilson, who had won reelection on his keeping the country out of the war, released the captured telegram as a way of building support for U.S. entry into the war. He had previously claimed neutrality, while calling for the arming of U.S. merchant ships delivering munitions to combatant Britain and quietly supporting the British blockading of German ports and mining of international waters, preventing the shipment of food from America and elsewhere to combatant Germany. After submarines sank seven U.S. merchant ships and the publication of the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson called for war on Germany, which the U.S. Congress declared on 6 April 1917.[68]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World_War

But even all of that detail does not really get to the underlying root "causes" of U.S. "interest" and involvement in the war. For example, it does not explicate the role of U.S. private financial investment in funding various nations in the European conflict. So, once again, we can examine the superficial, public pronouncements, but what are the true, underlying, fundamental causes. Human nature and a desire to act out aggression? Desire to make a financial profit and the fact that the degree of profit will be higher if the misfortune of others is higher?

-- Jack Krupansky

Is Reboubt the first volcano to be followed on Twitter?

You can follow the updates on the Redoubt volcano from the Alaska Volcano Observatory on Twitter.

Is this the first volcano to be "followed" on Twitter? Interesting.

There are plenty of reports, data, images, and even webcams for Redoubt and the other Alaska volcanoes (yes, there are more that are active) on the Alaska Volcano Observatory Web site.

Still no eruption. Kind of like the Obama stimulus plan in Washington. Lots of rumblings, a little smoke and steam. Which one will burst out first?

-- Jack Krupansky

Alaska Volcano Observatory

Wow, Alaska actually has a volcano observatory (Alaska Volcano Observatory), how cool is that?!

They even have webcams for each of Alaska's volcanoes. Two for Redoubt, supposedly about to erupt, one from sea level in the Cook Inlet, and one from a hut at a much higher elevation. Redoubt is at aviation code "orange." There are two other Alaska volcanoes at code "yellow": Cleveland and Shishaldin.

If Redoubt does erupt, I wonder what the impact will be on global temperature for the Arctic region and even the whole Northern Hemisphere over the next two years. All of that particulate matter will tend to cool the lower atmosphere. Sure, it will only be a temporary impact, but it will reduce the number of climate change "records" set in the next two years compare to those records supposedly set in recent years.

Needless to say, I am fascinated by volcanoes.

-- Jack Krupansky

What is cyberpunk?

I have heard the term "cyberpunk" many times, but never really understand exactly what it meant, but the Merriam-Webster Word of the Day defines it for me:

science fiction dealing with future urban societies dominated by computer technology

Okay, fine, but that is a rather confusing term for a seemingly simple concept. I understand the "cyber" part, but what is the "punk" all about? I am familiar with the concept of "punk" that the dictionary (M-W) defines as "a usually petty gangster, hoodlum, or ruffian."

As usual, a quick consultation with the Wikipedia provides a little enlightenment, telling us that "It features advanced science, such as information technology and cybernetics, coupled with a degree of breakdown or radical change in the social order." That "degree of breakdown ... in the social order" tells it all, and actually is at least roughly compatible with the "ruffian" dictionary meaning, or individuals who act outside of "the social order."

So, the dictionary meaning is somewhat lacking in that it does not convey the sense of individuals who engage in activities not considered "proper" by the established "authorities" and presumed institutional "social values."

The Wikipedia further characterizes cyberpunk as an effort to "describe the often nihilistic underground side of an electronic society" and "a troubled future" and "the antithesis of the generally utopian visions of the future popular in the 1940s and 1950s."

Ah, so that is what it is really all about, a reaction against the common "visions of the future" that may have excessively extrapolated a supposedly benevolent U.S. government superpower and supposedly benevolent U.S. megacorporations supposedly doing only "good" in the world. With a good amount of Orwellian 1984 in the mix. Orwell succeeds at describing the oppressiveness of a presumed future, but not the sense of individuals overcoming that oppressiveness that cyberpunk provides.

Maybe it was also representative of a rejection of the superficial images of domestic serenity as commonly shown in American sitcoms in the early 1960's and the futuristic cartoon series The Jetsons, which simply extrapolated technology, government, and big business as "goodness" far out into the indefinite future.

It does seem to me that the focus is on retention of the rights of free choice -- and the ability to subvert "the rules" -- regardless of the advances in capabilities of technology, government, and business.

In one sense cyberpunk is quite gloomy, but maybe its appeal is that it projects a world in which the individual can transcend that gloom, sort of. Or something like that.

-- Jack Krupansky

Is globalization a good thing?

A recent discussion at Cafe Philo in New York City centered on the question "Is globalization a good thing?". In preparation for the discussion I did some online research, found some definitions, and read some articles, including the Wikipedia (among others), but I neglected to form my own views. In fact, other than some comments on the group's online discussion forum, I actually did not make any contribution to the discussion, other than to carefully listen and take notes. In truth, I still do not have any general or specific answer to the question that satisfies me. Sure, I do have a number of opinions, but it all feels too vague and disorganized to form a concrete view to present. The absolute best I can do even at this stage is to simply say that globalization is a mixed bag, with plenty of positives and plenty of negatives that may or may not roughly balance out on any given day in any given locale for any given person or group.

Let me make some specific points of my view:

• I personally do not think of some specific field of study called "globalization." Sure, there are many aspects of a global nature that impact my own life, but they all seem integrated with their own fields of study and not some separate, special branch of human knowledge. Or at least that is how it feels to me.
• As I think about my daily life, "globalization" is not a topic that ever pops into my head.
• I do not subscribe to any paranoid conspiracy theories involving the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc., or any transnational power structures with hidden agendas.
• Sure, large multinational businesses have on occasion caused problems, but on balance overall have probably created more good than evil.
• Outsourcing and offshoring of jobs is sometimes essential to efficient operations of businesses, but frequently poorly implemented and does in fact constitute a full-blown "social problem" despite its many economic benefits.
• There are plenty of non-economic aspects of global interaction and integration, including consumer communication, television, the Internet, cultural exchanges, travel, exposure to other cultures, etc. that are just as much a part of globalization as multinational businesses and multilateral organizations.
• Despite communications advances and the Internet, globalization still has an overwhelmingly impersonal feel to it.
• We are still a world of nations and tribes. It is not clear whether we will ever get to the concept of nation-less and tribes-less "world citizens."
• There is a real concern that the interests of the people in a country can be unfairly compromised if the government or business leaders engage in misguided "foreign entanglements."
• Conquest, empire, and colonialism were early forms of globalization, with remnants still dogging social, economic, and political progress in many emerging areas.
• The concept of "world music" benefits from the travel and communication options derived from globalization and is itself a form of globalization.
• The global philanthropic efforts of Bill Clinton, Bono, and Bill and Melinda Gates to address global social problems are also a form of globalization that is strictly positive in nature without any of the traditional profit-motive baggage.
• There are plenty of NGOs that operate at a global level. That itself is a form of globalization that is mostly good.
• The English language is a mixed bag. Yes, it can "subdue" local and indigenous languages, but it also enables global communications between diverse peoples and cultures. Overall, mostly a good thing.
• Even young children seem intensively eager to interact with others who are not their own tribe, race, national, or ethnic background. Maybe there is a genetic predisposition to intermingling that only gets more desirable at the global level.
• How many people do not like to go to "world fairs" or express an interest in the Olympics? Pure globalization.
• Religion: is it the chicken or the egg for globalization?
• Global pandemics are enabled by globalization. Not good. But, frequent contact between many diverse groups may also serve to distribute immunities so that there may be some net reduction in epidemics even if there is still some possibility of some "perfect storm" disaster in the future.
• Inter-marriage between diverse cultures is probably good for survival of the human species.
• OTOH, constant intermixing among all groups may prevent the development of evolutionary improvements in local areas that may have significant advantage. Hard to say.

I am still having trouble trying to categorize globalization. It gets into a lot of different categories, but does not fit neatly into any. Is globalization a "truth"? Hard to say.

-- Jack Krupansky

Watch the original Star Trek TV episodes online

For the past couple of months I have been watching the original Star Trek TV episodes online at the CBS Web site. I am currently about halfway through the second season (of three.)

It is a strange experience. I watched the original only in black and white. Now, I see all of the colors and in higher resolution. The downside is that you see all of the blemishes and tackiness of the sets. Back then (1967), the computer display technology really was "futuristic", but now it seems so quaint and anachronistic.

I have also run into a couple of references to "the 1990's" and "the early 2000's" as if some far out technological or social advances had occurred in those periods (30 to 40 years in the future from the original series), but clearly have not happened, yet.

There is also the philosophical angle. Most of the episodes had some philosophy angle which I couldn't have cared less about back in the 1960's, but are now more interesting since I am more interested in philosophy.

-- Jack Krupansky